December 29, 2005

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James White director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 973 4602 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James White.

Bart Ehrman, Textual Criticism, and the “Hundreds of Thousands” of Variants

And welcome to the dividing line on a Thursday afternoon. Feels like we were just here because we were yesterday in fact, and we continue where we left off yesterday we have been listening to a couple of different things.

Specifically listening to Bart Ehrman's NPR and if you I got an interesting email Someone I guess a defender of airmen or someone who Buys into his spin on textual issues something along that I I'm not exactly sure what the story it is but anyway, I Didn't like that that I felt that airmen seems to claim an ability to mind read dead people.

But the fact the matter is when he continually uses loaded terms and loaded language to say that this Scribe changed this and changed that then he is assuming that there is a purposefulness In regards to what the scribe did and that he can somehow know what their intentions were you can't know.

Those intentions you can theorize about things I suppose but when you speak with certainty as to such things then you are in fact claiming to have the ability to know exactly what a person intended and In the vast majority of instances, especially in ancient manuscripts the scribes do not give us little notes and say by the way I I did this that or the other thing and that this isn't there.

So anyway, and we're also listening to the Ahmed ZDOT debate with a pastor Stanley I Was Informed of the name again, which as I mentioned was was a slaughter but we are demonstrating the errors in DDOT's presentation and So I just wanna make sure one understands which one switch we had one poor young man confused by that last time and and Was wondering what the Muslims were doing on with Diane reams on on NPR talking about the New Testament.

I've so it's a little little confusing there, but anyway We continue on with Airman's NPR interview here. We have to skip over a brief little commercial thing with Bobby here in just a moment, but She was trying to bring up the issue of the the virgin birth at this point in time so we pick up with that accounts and so.

So what we have here are two different accounts of the of the birth rather than virgin birth. The virgin birth, yes, so. The there is of course in both accounts Mary is said to have been a virgin. Some scribes actually tried to emphasize that point by Stressing the virginity of Mary in their textual changes.

They made in the manuscripts because they they the scribes copying these texts believed in the virgin birth and they wanted to emphasize that and so they would add it in Places where otherwise it's not found now.

I really really wish that he would provide some evidence here a few citations a reference or two. I looked in misquoting Jesus. There's nothing about the virgin birth or Mary. So I can't I can't speculate.

I I know that we have like Luke 222 in a much much much much later Textual variation from like the 15th century or something like that, but without without references again. All we just have are these these very glowing.

Oh, well, they believe in this and so they did this. There's the mind reading yet since they believe in this then they stuck it in places that it really wasn't there before and so on so forth and so. That's that's exactly what I was talking about.

That's that's not how Textual criticism is done at least it's when when you're not Pursuing a particular agnostic agenda in the process and I would point out Continuing to I would say defend your apostasy for the faith.

But anyways, let's continue on here.

The book is titled misquoting Jesus. This story behind who chain needs to address two concerns. He says change the Bible and. Here is an email from Ray in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Your speaker needs to address two concerns.

He says first does he sharply distinguish between the manuscript evidence and his explanation of the evidence. All too often Bible critics confuse the two. The one is plain for all to see the other Simply the opinion of a mere man However learned he may be.

Well, it's a very good question. I you know my students in Chapel Hill where I have a lot of very conservative students. They take my class on the New Testament and they find a lot of my interpretations of the text threatening.

But they can write them off as interpretations when I when I start talking about the material we're discussing though. They find it very threatening because now I'm not talking about my interpretation.

I'm simply laying out the historical facts now that that may be. What he actually believes.

But that's not what's going on. He evidently seems to think that his spin is the historical fact rather than the facts being the facts and then His utilization of particular loaded terms and spin then becomes facts.

That's a common problem that I see with with this kind of perspective, but Again, you know as long as he's a scholar that means you know that that he would never spin anything. Well, that simply isn't the case.

He has an agenda. He has a history which he has admitted and he has to Give reason for why he is where he is now and why he's doing what he's doing. And let's let's just be honest ourselves. This man's not a friend of the Christian faith.

He is Making his money off of attacking it and so he has an agenda. You know it's sort of like we have in our societies today only Christians 11 allegedly have agendas and Those who attack the Christian faith are just being good liberals.

They're being broad-minded so on so forth. Well That's what we have going on here as well. I'm certain that they would find it threatening especially if they have not been exposed to a meaningful Discussion of the transmission of the New Testament texts and the means by which God did so before they get into his class.

I am sure that he has a long line of skulls behind his desk notches on his gun and a lot to answer for someday when he stands before the one who inspired those texts that he of course is.

Seeking to cause doubt about we have thousands of Greek manuscripts not to mention thousands of Latin ones and all of these differ from one another in thousands and hundreds of thousands of ways. Now again, oh.

That that just means we we we can't make heads or tails out of text in the test anyone who's reading the New Testament knows. That's not the case. I Just don't know how someone with this man's knowledge can can just spin this so badly On purpose other than to sell books anyways, which is a powerful motivation.

I guess I mean if you were to listen to hundreds of thousands of variants You would think that every single verse you were reading there would just be No idea of what it originally what it originally meant.

I Mean that every manuscript just must be so different than every other manuscript and that isn't the case. That's not true. And he knows it's not true and and at other times he will say in fact in just a moment or two he will admit Yeah, the vast majority vast majority his own words vast majority of Variations are meaningless.

They're they're spelling differences word order differences clearly simple scribal vast. Majority of them are meaningless. So why in the world then use this kind of language? Why then talk about hundreds of thousands of changes it's not hundred thousand changes.

It just it's just amazing to me that this kind of thing is well I guess I shouldn't be amazed. This is the kind of thing NPR would would eat up and and You know our society goes. Oh, that's that's great.

That's wonderful. This is wonderful. We don't have to worry about what the Bible says anymore because no one knows what it originally said. Rather than getting into specifics and we get into some specifics here in a moment.

We're gonna see just how. Well, I'll say deceptive this kind of a presentation is again when you when you use the term hundreds of thousands hundreds of thousands. What he's talking about there is when you have one manuscript and it varies from Its exemplar.

All right, let's say its exemplar. That is the one that was it was copied from let's say we have a Situation in the 6th century where you have a scriptorium and you have a person reading the text and Then you have let's say five scribes Copying the text.

All right, so you have one exemplar and Now you have five copies being made of that exemplar and of course, it's gonna be a it's gonna be a long process. This isn't the most enjoyable work in the world.

We are not sitting in an air-conditioned room next to a guy who wears deodorant. We don't have nice lights over our heads we may be doing this by sunlight and so the Sun angle keeps changing and and Temperature keeps changing and maybe cold.

It may be hot we don't have people who get to have LASIK or sunglass or Prescription glasses and so on so forth and you have people who have various levels of hearing and The guy who's doing the reading might not be the same guy.

You might have one guy who's who's Very very good in his pacing and his enunciation and so on so forth but you might have another guy reading who isn't at all and is difficult to understand and it's difficult to know whether he's saying you as In you plural or us because they sound the same and his Greek pronunciation isn't good and yeah You're not having a good day.

So you don't even bother to raise your hand and ask them to repeat something blah blah blah. So you have one manuscript and Then you have five copies being made now, let's say Let's say we're copying the Book of Romans 16 chapters and in the process of that one Transcription of that one manuscript you end up with In in your best scribe makes seven errors.

Let's make it eight so it's one every two chapters. That's that's pretty good. I mean, I'd be really good most of us couldn't do that. He was well-practiced your worst scribe made 32 errors two per chapter.

I'll just make it nice and simple that way and everybody else is in between. All right. Now when you take those five and let's say an average of one error per chapter in each one of those things and and Even by his own admission the vast majority of these will not in any way shape or form affect what you're reading and obviously unless a Massive error is taking place and there's no checking.

There's no going back. There's no second reading anything like that No emendation later on if there's no checking whatsoever. Unless you have a huge error just just a massive error that would then of course stand out in comparison all the rest of them Obviously if the vast majority mean nothing and you don't have a major error like that.

If you read any one of those five manuscripts, are you going to understand what Paul said in Romans? Yes, you are but You take all those different you don't not just have an average of 16 different differences.

Yes 16 times 5 you see and if that one that was being read from came from a same type of situation as that then you multiply those together and That's how you end up with hundreds of thousands of alleged variations when in point of fact, you're not talking about That kind of massive corruption at all I mean when you sit down with the with the Nestle all in text you can read entire verses.

There's there's no absolutely, no textual Data information provided at all. There's there's no variations. They're listed at all and In the vast majority of situations a variation does not impact the reading of the text one way or the other now.

Are there of course there are I've written an entire book on the subject which is considerably longer than than the airmen's is Discussing those things there's no question about those things, but that's not what is being presented to people here and you're hardly going to be Encouraging people to do meaningful textual study when you just throw out this kind of of silliness as if No idea, it's just all this crap.

No, it's not. I mean if you took this kind of idea, you'd basically have to say we have no idea what anyone said in the past. Because the New Testament is is the purest document that's come down to us in that period of history I Mean I I suppose airmen should say we have we really don't have a clue about Plato or Aristotle or Pliny or Tacitus we don't have a clue what any of them actually said because in comparison New Testament We don't have nearly the same manuscript tradition.

We don't have As early manuscripts we just might as well throw them out we haven't a clue what they were talking about at all. Well, no, he knows we we we most definitely do. It's just he doesn't believe what the New Testament teaches anymore.

And so and there are places where scholars don't know what the original text said now. What does that mean? What does that mean?

Is he asserting that original readings have been lost. If he has then he's wrong. Because as he himself knows The New Testament manuscript tradition demonstrates what's called tenacity. Once a reading enters into that tradition then it stays in that tradition it when a variation takes place.

It leaves evidence of it having taken place in Various telltale ways or sometimes very obvious ways for example when you have a huge change like there's that one of the most famous Examples is one scribe who just wasn't having a good day.

All right, and you can tell he was copying from a manuscript that had two columns but he Didn't really notice that too. Well, and so he he went across the column says he was copying. And it was in the genealogy of Jesus and so like God ends up being the son of somebody the father someone else.

And I mean, it's it. It's just completely ridiculous, but you know what we know it's still there. We found it. It's it's we've Identified it and there's no question that that was the original. I mean when you have that kind of change Boom you Obviously, you know instantly are able to recognize that when it is compared with with the rest of the manuscript tradition and so This kind of this kind of language.

It really bothers me to see An area of my special interest in my my special study being used this way especially because I know of course that enemies of faith then will utilize this to you know attack the faith and and It is one area.

I got it. You know. No one can point a finger at me and say I haven't tried you know I mean the King James only controversy if it was aside from its pastoral need to help churches that were. That were it, you know being attacked by King James only ism it was also a real rather obvious attempt to instruct people on the subject of textual criticism and the manuscripts of New Testament and and because I've known for a long time this is where The enemies of the faith like to attack and it's an area that Christians Just they need to know more about it so that they can be prepared to deal with it.

Those are facts. Yeah, see that those are facts. We just don't know. We don't know what it's where where First Timothy 316 perhaps which is going to be one he's going to bring up here in a moment. Where which one are you saying that there are variants?

That we Have lost the original reading or are you saying that there are very difficult variants? There are a small number of very difficult variants where you have four or five different readings and they're very evenly spaced and What we should really really do is make sure that everyone has all the information available to them.

But what but to say we don't know does that simply mean we withhold judgment here are the variants that the manuscripts present to us and Here's how they would impact the text. Is that what he's saying?

If that's what he's saying, then why not say it is what I would like to know. That's that's the important part.

But anyways, we we continue on here's his second question. Granted that there are many variations. How many of these are in fact errors of any kind and how? May they have real significance for our Understanding of the message of the New Testament.

That's another great question.

Most of them most of the changes in the text I would say they're all errors because they've changed what the text said and so their errors to that extent. How many of them are significant? Well, the vast majority of them are insignificant.

Their spelling differences or they leave out a line or a word and so that's not all that.

Important. Okay. I hope we heard that. Okay let's make sure that we heard that one because That sort of really undercuts everything that came before about all these hundreds of thousands of changes because the vast majority them are irrelevant to the transmission of the text and the meaning of the text and I'm really glad that we have had that that conversation have that settled now.

But there are hundreds of changes that actually matter that changed the very meaning of the books that they're in. Now there we go.

Changes, that's his that that's term. He wants to use scholars use the term variants because scholars recognize that use term changes. Communicate something that is in the vast majority of instances not a part that's there and that's why Bart Ehrman uses changes so he can sell books and also so that he can you know promote his his agenda and so.

What are what kind are we talking about? Let's look at some.

At some examples and depending on which manuscripts you trust. The the very meaning of the book of the Gospel of John or the Gospel of Mark or the book of Hebrews. Changes depending on which manuscripts you you trust.

Really. Wow, so so we have in time so we can take one manuscript and it has one message for the Gospel of John. But another manuscript has a completely different Gospel John a completely different thing, right?

Wrong, of course not. No, that's not the case. The only way you could even begin to substantiate again this this extreme Lack of care in being accurate in language here on the part of someone who knows what he's talking about.

I Mean, he knows he's doing this. There's a no one could study the stuff that he studied and not know exactly what he's doing is to say. Well, you see there are important variants. There are variants at John 118 well, he wouldn't want to use that one because the the vast majority of scholarly opinion would go against his viewpoint there so, um, uh.

Let's see what other one we might use Romans 9 5 or Acts 20 28 because he will use this one. Okay. There's there's a there's a variant there. And and if you read it one way, then it might mean this but it read this way and and that might Change the entire book.

You mean all these books have like one text that defines their entire message. Is that what's being said here? I? mean. Once again, this is just not the language of of a careful scholar. You know the the conservative that ignores variations.

That's not being careful either. Saying eyes, there's there's no reason to look at the there's no reason look at that. They're textual stuff, you know. Just give me the King James. Okay, we know that's not right.

Now we got the other side doing the spin thing and it's the the truth in the middle. You've got to look at the specific texts and it's not just well this one manuscript over here. It's gonna say one thing this one.

I mean, no the very fact that you will find manuscripts taking different. Having different readings on both sides of an issue demonstrates that the reason they have variant readings is because of Scribal errors not because the scribe was specifically trying to say, okay.

My manuscripts gonna promote this particular theology my man. I'm gonna you know, it's like the New World Translation. You can imagine if someday someone, you know Started using English printed texts as if they were manuscript witnesses and now you've got the New World Translation or you've got Joseph Smith's version or something like that where you do have wholesale changes.

Well, those wholesale changes stand out like a sore thumb when you compare them with the primitive manuscripts themselves so. Again, it's it's frustrating to hear this kind of and so I'd say that's pretty significant.

And finally he says has any central doctrine of Christian faith. Been called into question by any of these variations.

Well, yes the the in the 18th century. One of the first scholars to start studying these materials was it was a man in Germany named Wettstein Who ended up losing his teaching post because he pointed out that a number of the changes in the in the oldest manuscripts? compromised the teaching of the deity of Christ and The they threatened the doctrine of the Trinity and that some of the oldest manuscripts didn't support the traditional views About Jesus as divine.

This this was a dangerous teaching and as I said, it ended up costing Wettstein his teaching post.

Now that's that sounds very ominous and it's You know, I have an entire chapter on Modern translations and modern texts or more properly ancient texts and the deity of Christ in the King James only controversy the Story that he just crammed into about 30 seconds there about what Stein is on pages 112 through 115 116 of his book and I was Really interested.

Okay. What examples is he gonna does he want to give here because when I started thinking about the deity of Christ in ancient manuscripts I think of John 118 and John 118 which airmen has some odd views on he's been refuted on them a number of times but he has some odd views on it, but John 118 the monogamous Theos is the most ancient reading and Jesus described there is God so in point of fact the Traditional text was not as strong in the deity of Christ there as the ancient text was and so I started thinking of manuscripts like p66 and p72 and p46.

Let's see. I said well, no none of those. None of those have any kind of Of Bias against the deity of Christ in any way shape or form that that that that doesn't make any sense. You're not gonna find.

So I which which ones are we talking about here? I mean a first Timothy 316 you have God's manifest in flesh or he was manifested of flesh. It's a difference between Haas theos. It's a gnomon a sacred if you ever seen my King James only presentation I put him up on the screen for using see what the differences are the idea.

This is somehow a quote-unquote change. It is so much more simple to recognize it is a scribal issue not a purposeful change to use the term change like that is just absolutely positively Again grossly biased and prejudicial and so on so forth so I start thinking about others.

So what what other texts could there be that that would be referenced? Well, so I looked at the Looked at the references. Well, first of all is first Timothy 316 and He mentions what Stein examining codex Alexandrinus and that he feels the original reading of Alexandrinus was Haas rather than theos and.

So that's massively important. Well, yeah, it is a very important textual variant. There's no question about that and I think it needs to be examined carefully and it's a difficult one because there is so little difference between the two readings as far as what they would look like in an unsealed text and and things like that.

But that's what he mentions then he mentions the comma Johannium first John 5 7 through 8. Well what what is Really important about that that had been debated. That had been known in the days of Erasmus.

Erasmus had debated that one a hundred and What about a hundred and thirty years before this point in time that's hardly relevant. Then he then then the minor rather minor variant. In fact, it acts 2028 which is as I discussed in the Forgotten Trinity an issue not only of translation But of text as to whether that is a passage that is specifically referring the deity of Christ and that's all there.

That's all he gives and I'm like What are you talking about here? You have the strengthening of the witness and John and John 118 you have all these passages clearly presenting the deity of Christ and a couple of minor Passages like that that are are not in any way shape or form the ground or foundation the deity of Christ.

This somehow is the best way of demonstrate it was yes Sir that the deity of Christ falls on textual critical grounds. No, it doesn't. That's absurd absolutely positively absurd. I just again I Maybe maybe.

You know his students don't challenge him or he doesn't allow it or I don't know. But it's just like how do you get away with that? I don't I just don't understand. Well, we will continue with that and by the way your phone calls if you would like at eight seven seven seven five three three three four one eight seven seven seven five three three three four one a little bit more with the airmen and then Moving on to Ahmed D dot as well.

But first we're gonna be taking our mid-hour break and we'll be right back right after this.

Today. So many stars. True. What is dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book chosen, but free a new cult. Secularism. False prophecy scenarios. No, dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called Calvinism.

He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent. Philosophically insufficient and morally repugnant. In his book the potter's freedom James White replies to dr. Geisler, but the potter's freedom is much more than just a reply.

It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded. Indeed is a defense of the very gospel itself in a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate. James White masterfully counters the evidence against so-called extreme Calvinism.

Defines what the reformed faith actually is and concludes that the gospel preached by the reformers is the very one taught in the pages of Scripture. The potter's freedom a defense of the Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's chosen.

But free you'll find it in the reformed theology section of our bookstore at a omen org. This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God.

The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church. The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day.

The morning Bible study begins at 9 30 a .m. And the worship service is at 10 45. Evening services are at 6 30 p .m. On Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix.

You can call for further information at 602 6026 grace. If you're unable to attend you can still participate with your computer and real audio at prbc .org. Where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day.

Under the guise of tolerance modern culture grants alternative lifestyle status to homosexuality. Even more disturbing some within the church attempt to revise and distort Christian teaching on this behavior.

In Their book the same-sex controversy. James White and Jeff Neal write for all who want to better understand the Bible's teaching on the subject explaining and defending the foundational Bible passages that deal with homosexuality including Genesis Leviticus and Romans.

Expanding on these scriptures they refute the revisionist arguments including the claim that Christians today need not adhere to the law. In a straightforward and loving manner they appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent.

And to return to God's plan for his people. The same-sex controversy defending and clarifying the Bible's message about homosexuality. Get your copy in the bookstore at a omen dot org.

The Meaning of “Changes,” Variants, and the Deity of Christ in the Manuscripts

And welcome back to the dividing line on a Thursday afternoon. I want to clarify something that I just said and acts 2028. I think I may have called it a minor variant. It's it's not a minor variant as far as the split in the information in fact.

It's very interesting variant between Church of the Lord and Church of God. It's a minor passage as far as the deity of Christ is concerned. It's it. I've never seen anyone basing some huge edifice some great foundation of the deity of Christ and acts 2028 it just it just isn't that central to the Demonstration it may be relevant, but you'll see in the section the forgotten Trinity.

I went through various places where they asked might be used of Christ and I talked about acts 2028. Romans 9 5 1st John 5 20. But these are passages where there's enough question. You don't just simply say ah it's right here.

You got it Got to believe it's right here. Or you know we'll we'll tie it to a stake. I suppose there may have been some folks who do that at some point in history but thankfully we don't we don't do that today and So anyways, I wasn't if I called it a minor variant.

I what I meant was the text itself is is a minor Support in the deity of Christ. It's actually an interesting variant and All sorts of internal probabilities between again. It's the same Situation you have in first Timothy 316.

There you have what's called a a gnomon a sacred that is there's certain sacred name and other certain words that were used repeatedly in the New Testament would be abbreviated and a line placed over top of the abbreviation and so say us and Haas Would be a theta Sigma and the difference between the two would be only the line over the top and the line in the theta.

That's would would differentiate from the from a Omicron for Haas, which this doesn't work really well on the dividing line. It's much easier to do this with a digital projector because I put it up on the screen you can see it well, the same thing is is true here the difference both of God and Of the Lord both be gnomon a sacred.

So both would be two-letter words a line over top one letter difference between the two so again When you when you hear airmen change change change change communicates purposeful Emendation what we're actually talking about is a changing of one letter.

And is that more especially think about think about copying someone else's handwriting written on papyrus or on leather. Think about that for a moment look at your leather the leather cover of your Bible make that a light brown and Now write on it with a quill not with a nice ballpoint pen or or a nice gel pen or something with a quill all right and All the things that come along with ink and quills.

Now what else do you have in the surface you have lines in the surface the thing about the difference between reading someone else's handwriting and their difference between a Circle with a little line in the middle and a line over top and just an open circle.

Yes, see how that might happen. Yeah, so do I so why do you assume it to be purposeful? It could go either direction, that's how scholars have discussed in the past, and they didn't make a whole lot of money selling books for Harper San Francisco either, but and anything good could have come out of San Francisco is the question these days.

Anyway, so I want to clarify that before we continued on here with just a little bit more. I.

Barbara Thiering, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code

Have so many questions, but we have to go to the phones. Let's go to Charlottesville, Virginia. Good morning Fred. You're on the air.

Good morning, and thank you for taking my call. I'm very very excited that we can get your show now.

I am too. Thank you so much.

Bart I had a an experience I won't call it a religious experience, but a book fell off of a bookshelf about eight nine years ago. And it was written by dr. Barbara Thiering who's a doctor of theology at the University of Sydney in Australia.

And she has written several books on Jesus the man. And I'm wondering if you're familiar with her scholarship. I've even attempted to get the religious studies department at UVA to consider offering it as a class.

Because it is just awesome information. Are you familiar with Barbara Thiering? Yes, I am. What do you think of her. Well Barbara Thiering is not widely respected among scholars largely because of her somewhat peculiar Ideas about the Dead Sea Scrolls and their relationship to the historical Jesus.

The Dead Sea Scrolls actually have nothing to do With the historical Jesus or with early Christianity their Jewish documents. And Barbara Thiering is One of a very very small group of people who have wanted to try and emphasize the the relationship of the scrolls to Jesus.

Jesus personally.

Which you hopefully in hearing that are going ah that's relevant to. Who that's right Dan Brown and the DaVinci Code. Because what does he say what's going to be on? Movie screens unless maybe someone's actually gotten to.

Maybe fix a couple of these rather really major whoopses. Like including the Dead Sea Scrolls as part of the original Christian Gospels. Yeah, that kind of you know, maybe they'll get the century of Constantine right now.

Maybe maybe some someone wandered by the sentence that I you know. You're off a hundred years there and and they may have fixed to that I don't know. I'm gonna be looking very very very carefully when that when that comes up, but.

Maybe maybe they've fixed that I don't know but there is a direct relevance there to something that we have been dealing with. Thanks for your call.

The “Living Text” View of the Gospels and Why Corruption Still Matters

Here's an email from Kyle in Durham, North Carolina. Who says as your remarks suggest as does the title of your book? You believe the Bible was changed. Presumably from some pure early form, but why do we have to think of this as a corruption?